Early in the French Revolutionary Wars, many generals besides Napoleon were capable of winning battles independently (Moreau at Hohenlinden, etc). Yet later in the period only Napoleon seemed capable of defeating his foes as supreme commander. Why?

by me_gusta_comer

Just wanted to engage with something that always puzzles me about the era. The Imperial army was meritocratic and quick to honor capable commanders at the division level and lower — why couldn’t the Marshals of the Empire handle independent command? Why couldn’t Napoleon find anyone besides Davout who could deal with not being under the Emperor’s wing? Further, why didn’t he use Davout when he needed him most, instead keeping him holed up in Hamburg and in Paris for Leipzig and Waterloo?

Why did more men like Moreau not emerge?

(crosspost from reddit.com/r/ageofnapoleon)

Darth_Acheron

Part of your question has been answered by in a earlier thread https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48lu46/why_didnt_napoleon_make_fuller_use_of_marshal/

and here: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3k3cfl/who_were_napoleons_rival_generals_in/